The history you think you know is, to a greater extent than you might imagine, inaccurate. This is not necessarily a deliberate fabrication, but rather a distortion arising from a fundamental human tendency: the desire to simplify complexity and impose clear boundaries on the ever-evolving narrative of the past. We have accepted as fact that Marie Antoinette uttered, “Let them eat cake,” that Nero orchestrated the burning of Rome, and that Vikings adorned themselves with horned helmets. But what if these narratives, these established “facts” within our collective consciousness, are merely the product of a shared yearning? A yearning to believe what reassures us, what serves our interests, what justifies our present circumstances? Could our understanding of the past simply be a narrative we construct for ourselves?

This documentary will not only present alternative perspectives, but will also delve into the depths of the human psyche, exploring the motivations behind our preference for comforting illusions over challenging truths. Why do we cling to myths, even when confronted with irrefutable evidence to the contrary? Prepare for a fundamental re-evaluation of your understanding of the past… and of yourself.

Before we unveil the compelling evidence, we invite you to enrich this discussion by sharing in the comments any historical myths that shocked you upon discovering their falsity. And please subscribe to the channel and activate the notification bell to receive our latest investigations into the intricacies of history.

Napoleon: Not So Short After All

Our first myth centers on the image of Napoleon Bonaparte: the brilliant military strategist, the emperor who dominated Europe. How often have we heard that he was of short stature? This stereotype, deeply ingrained in our minds, obscures a complex narrative of political propaganda, profound historical misinterpretations, and the inherent human need to simplify complex realities. Napoleon’s actual height, approximately 1.70 meters, was quite average for French men of his era. So, what is the origin of this pervasive myth?

Let us trace its origins to the heart of the Napoleonic Wars. British propaganda, a potent and relentless weapon of the time, played a crucial role in distorting his image. Scathing caricatures circulated widely, depicting him as a diminutive figure, intended to evoke ridicule and contempt rather than awe and respect. The affectionate nickname “Little Corporal,” bestowed upon him by his soldiers, was exploited to reinforce the stereotype of his short stature. This was not merely propaganda; it was a calculated campaign of image warfare aimed at undermining the prestige of the French leader.

However, the issue extends beyond mere propaganda. Inaccurate comparisons between the French and English systems of measurement contributed to exaggerating the perceived difference in height. This fallacy, coupled with the desire to diminish this formidable adversary, led to the entrenchment of the image of a short Napoleon in the collective memory. Furthermore, Napoleon’s practice of surrounding himself with guards of considerable stature would have made him appear shorter in comparison.

The French Revolution: A Complex Legacy

But is the exaggeration of Napoleon’s height sufficient to diminish his true legacy? Let us examine the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, often presented as the cornerstone of the French Revolution and a beacon in the history of human rights. While inspired by Enlightenment ideals, it was not a universal charter in the modern sense. Participation was limited to a select elite of members of the National Constituent Assembly. It was a declaration primarily intended for free, white men, neglecting the rights of other groups.

Even more significantly, this declaration excluded women. Olympe de Gouges challenged this exclusion by writing the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen. But the most shocking revelation concerns the fate of slavery. Abolished in 1794, it was reinstated by Napoleon himself in 1802. How can a figure celebrated as a liberator reinstate slavery? This stark contradiction, often overlooked, reveals the darker aspects of the French Revolution. Final abolition would not occur for several more decades, in 1848. Why do we prefer to embellish history rather than confront uncomfortable truths? Is it not because the complex truth threatens our psychological need for idealized heroes and simplistic narratives? Portraying Napoleon as an unblemished hero ignores the complexities and contradictions inherent in his legacy.

The Moon Landing: Conspiracy or Reality?

This question leads us to the second myth: the human landing on the moon. While the world celebrates this achievement, some polls indicate that a significant percentage of the population believes it was a hoax. Why do these doubts persist despite the overwhelming evidence? Why do some individuals insist on denying a reality supported by thousands of hours of recordings, photographs, and scientific data?

The answer lies in a confluence of psychological and social factors. First, there is the Dunning-Kruger effect, wherein individuals with limited competence overestimate their abilities, making them more susceptible to believing misinformation and dismissing contradictory evidence. Then there is the perseverance effect, which explains how beliefs persist even after the original evidence supporting them has been discredited. Doubts have become ingrained in their minds and integrated into their sense of identity.

We must also acknowledge the pivotal role of the media, particularly social media, in disseminating these doubts. The algorithms of these platforms amplify content that aligns with users’ pre-existing beliefs, creating echo chambers that reinforce and intensify doubts. Furthermore, confirmation bias plays a significant role, as individuals tend to seek out and interpret information in a manner that confirms their existing beliefs, making it more difficult to alter their perspectives. Is it not tempting to embrace a conspiracy theory rather than acknowledge the possibility of being wrong? This fundamental need for self-affirmation fuels the persistence of doubts. Believing in a conspiracy theory provides a sense of cognitive distinction, the perception of possessing insights unavailable to others.

Myths and Contemporary Fears

Are persistent historical myths not a reflection of our contemporary fears and biases? The concept of racial superiority, which fueled Nazism and ignited the atrocities of World War II, continues to resonate among far-right groups worldwide. This concept is embodied in movements that assert a false notion of white supremacy, despite its scientific and humanitarian refutation. These are not merely historical relics, but living ideologies that incite violence and discrimination. They represent an expression of fear of the “other” and a desire to maintain the existing power structure.

Reports indicate that a significant percentage of the population still subscribes to anti-Semitic myths, such as the claim of alleged Jewish control over the media, an idea that traces its origins to the fabricated Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These beliefs fuel hatred and racism in our digital world and influence people’s attitudes toward political and social issues. The proliferation of these myths serves as a reminder of the dangers of misinformation and the importance of combating it through education and awareness.

Even commonly accepted psychological concepts, such as Stockholm syndrome, may be based on a simplification of historical events. Does this simplification affect our understanding of human relationships? Could it lead to misjudgments in sensitive cases such as domestic violence? And let us not forget how the phrase “If they have no bread, let them eat cake” is used to distort the image of elites and justify popular anger, while ignoring the real social and economic complexities. This phrase, regardless of its authenticity, has become a symbol of the ruling class’s indifference to the suffering of the populace.

The Psychology of Believing Myths

Why do we believe myths? Is it simply a matter of lacking knowledge? It is fundamentally about the way our minds function. Consider, for example, confirmation bias, which compels us to cling to information that confirms our existing beliefs and disregard information that contradicts them. A 1979 study by Lord, Ross, and Lepper demonstrated this bias, as individuals with pre-existing opinions about the death penalty tended to favor studies that supported their viewpoint, even when the evidence was mixed. We seek what reassures us and avoid what challenges our convictions.

Then there is cognitive dissonance, the state of discomfort we experience when our beliefs conflict. Festinger’s theory, introduced in 1957, offers an explanation, as believing a historical myth may reduce this dissonance if the myth aligns with our worldview. Can you imagine a world without clear heroes or villains? A world devoid of easy answers or quick solutions? It is a complex and confusing world, but it is also the real world. Historical myths, despite their falsity, provide us with a sense of control over this complexity and offer us a simplified framework for understanding the past. They are like comforting stories we tell ourselves, shielding us from confronting disturbing truths.

Conclusion

Ultimately, debunking historical myths is not intended to dismantle the past, but to understand the present. Our awareness of the psychological and social motivations behind the persistence of these myths allows us to think critically about the information we receive, confront our personal biases, and construct a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the world around us. History is not simply a series